Search

CHILD WELFARE IN CANADA: Understanding Neglect and Permanency for Indigenous Children

By Eliana Sinicropi


Introduction

The Canadian child welfare system is unable to act in the best interest of Indigenous children who are consistently overrepresented within the provincial child welfare systems. In Ontario, provincial child welfare legislation is underprepared to address the legacy of cultural genocide and ill-equipped to promote traditional Indigenous values. This paper will focus on analyzing the Indigenous child welfare system in Ontario, following the commitments by the federal and provincial government to provide culturally appropriate child welfare services. Implications for investigations regarding child maltreatment, specifically those concerning neglect, and pathways into permanency for Indigenous children are discussed. This paper argues that current policy frameworks fail to address and recognize the value of cultural identity and alternative understandings of family and community. This paper recommends codifying Indigenous values in child welfare policy, the creation of population specific risk assessment tools and negotiating customary care protocols with Indigenous communities.


The History of Indigenous Child Welfare in Canada

The Canadian child welfare system strives to protect and enhance the well-being of children. Historically, these services have not applied to Indigenous children, whose well-being was not taken into consideration by the federal government during their attempts to assimilate the children into Euro-Canadian society.[1] Interventions for Indigenous children emphasized the principles of civilization and assimilation. These goals were promoted through a series of commissions, reports and legislation, which sought to constrain Indigenous rights and sovereignty. Following these changes, assimilation of Indigenous children was achieved though policies that aimed to remove them from their families, first by utilizing residential schools and then later, through the Sixties Scoop. Unfortunately, the current child welfare policies, borne out of these events, continue to perpetuate this systemic cultural genocide.[2]

In 1845, the Bagot Commission was presented before the legislative assembly, recommending that Indigenous children could be more effectively assimilated if separated from their parents. In 1876, the Indian Act came into effect, granting the federal government jurisdiction over Indigenous identity, governance and education. The Act criminalized the performance of cultural ceremonies or gatherings and the use of legal counsel regarding land claims, as well as mandating that all Indigenous children attend residential schools.[3] In 1879, the Davin Report was commissioned by Prime Minister Macdonald on the efficacy of industrial schools in the United States and West Canada. This report praised how these institutions operated to teach the ‘arts of civilization,’ in accordance with a policy of ‘aggressive civilization.’[4] Soon thereafter, in the 1880s, federally funded Indian Residential Schools began operating across Canada. These schools were overseen by religious institutions, predominantly the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church. Residential Schools that were solely operated by religious institutions began as early as 1831, with the Mohawk Institute in Brantford, Ontario.[5] According to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) it is estimated that 150,000 First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples attended Residential Schools. Students in Residential Schools underwent rigorous assimilation, which required the purging of cultural clothing, emblems, language and names. Conditions within Residential Schools were poor, and many children died of disease, malnourishment and overcrowding.[6] Additionally, children were made to undergo hard labour, experience severe correctional punishments and sexual abuse. Approximately 6,000 Indigenous children died while attending Residential Schools. The real number is likely much higher.[7] In 2021, the remains of 215 Indigenous children were discovered at the site of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in Kamloops, British Columbia.[8] The last federally funded Residential School did not close until 1996.[9]

The forceful removal of Indigenous children from their families did not abate following the closure of Residential Schools. Instead, the child welfare system superseded these institutions, providing a mechanism for provincial governments to continue apprehending Indigenous children. Canada’s first Children’s Aid Society was established in Toronto in 1891 in response to growing national and international interest in the well-being of children. Prior to this, children were viewed as a responsibility of the family or the surrounding insular community and state intervention was considered unnecessary. In 1893, the Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to and Better Protection of Children or the Children’s Protection Act was implemented, and child maltreatment was criminalized as a punishable offense.[10]

Although the federal government began relying less on residential schools, the unlawful apprehension of Indigenous children from their families continued. Spanning from 1961 into the 1980s, Indigenous children were removed en masse from their homes. This period is knowns as the ‘Sixties Scoop.’[11] During this time, Indigenous children were removed from their homes and placed in the care of Euro-Canadian families, without consent from their families or communities. Conditions which warranted the removal of children from their homes were determined based on Euro-Canadian values and did not account for broader socioeconomic factors experienced by Indigenous families, such as poverty, unemployment or substance use. By the 1970s, approximately one third of all children in out-of-home care were Indigenous.[12]


Child Welfare Policy

In 2019, Bill C-92 or an Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Children, Youth and Families was passed.[13] This federal legislation promotes Indigenous self-government regarding child welfare and seeks to establish national standards of care, in response to increasing pressures from Indigenous Peoples and advocates to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care.[14] Bill C-92 adheres to the Truth and Reconciliation’s fourth call to action: “enact Aboriginal child-welfare legislation that establishes national standards for Aboriginal child apprehension.”[15] This Act was developed in conjunction with the Assembly of First Nations and various Indigenous partners. Beginning in 2018, Indigenous Services Canada consulted Indigenous organizations, advocates, elders and individuals with lived experience, culminating in over 2000 participants across 65 engagement sessions.[16]

The principles guiding the Act are as follows: (1) best interests of the child, (2) cultural continuity, and (3) substantive equality. To uphold the best interests of the child, the Act commits to preserve cultural identity, consider a child’s preferences and support Indigenous traditions.[17] Cultural continuity refers to prioritizing the placement of children within the same Indigenous group and service-delivery which aligns with Indigenous values, languages and traditions. Substantive equality refers to an Indigenous child’s and their family members’ ability to express and exercise their rights without discrimination.[18] However, Indigenous legal scholars have voiced concerns that the Act does not adequately address jurisdictional divisions and noted the persistent lack of funding.[19] In July 2020, the federal government committed $542 million over five years to implement Bill C-92. Any Indigenous groups, governing bodies and organizations may submit a capacity-building proposal to receive funding.[20]

In Canada, child welfare is regulated and administered provincially. Where provincial and federal legislation are in conflict, Bill C-92 has jurisdiction.[21] The most recent child welfare legislation in Ontario, The Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA), came into effect in 2018. Among the amendments is a renewed commitment to providing early intervention and more comprehensive oversight. Notably, Section 4 of the CYFSA highlights the government’s resolution to offer more culturally appropriate services, by authorizing Indigenous bands or communities to designate their own child and family service authority. In addition, this section requires that the designation of services and subsidies be completed only following an agreement with Indigenous child and family services authorities. Finally, changes to care agreements and other service provisions require consultation with the necessary First Nations, Inuit or Métis bands or communities.[22]

Child maltreatment includes physical and sexual abuse, as well as neglect and exposure to intimate partner violence. According to the Ontario Incident Report of Child Abuse from 2018, the most common substantiated cases of child abuse were exposure to intimate partner violence (45%) and neglect (21%).[23] Physical abuse (19%) and emotional abuse (12%) closely followed. Sexual abuse (3%) was the least likely to be reported and substantiated. In 2018, 26% of investigations conducted were substantiated for child maltreatment. Of these, 10% involved a child with Indigenous heritage. Indigenous children were approximately two and a half times more likely to have a substantiated case of maltreatment in comparison to non-Indigenous children. [24]


Neglect Investigations

There is sufficient research to suggest that the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the Canadian child welfare system is driven by substantiated neglect investigations. This fact poses a challenge since neglect is symptomatic of broader structural issues, which are harder to rectify.[25] Neglect is most aptly described as an absence of material and relational needs whose provision is expected of a guardian.[26] This is reflected in legislative policy. In Ontario, neglect is characterized as a “failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or a pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child,” which may result in the child befalling harm.[27] In this situation, Ontario child welfare workers are attempting to assess potential risks to the child, which can prove complicated to determine.

For First Nations children, neglect is the most common type of substantiated maltreatment investigation.[28] Sinha et al. (2013) determined that 46% of all substantiated neglect investigations in Quebec involved First Nations children.[29] Additionally, according to the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, last published in 2008 (the most recent national data on child welfare), Indigenous children comprise one-fourth of all neglect investigations.[30] Risk factors associated with children experiencing neglect include poverty, substance use, social isolation and spousal violence. Indigenous Peoples are more likely to face structural inequalities which can impede their ability to meet the needs of their children as outlined by legislation. Among First Nations families, poor quality housing and housing instability, poverty and substance use contribute to a higher likelihood of having a substantiated neglect investigation.[31]

The prevalence of substantiated neglect investigations may pose a risk to the reunification of Indigenous children with birth families, after being placed in out-of-home care. The purpose of the Canadian child welfare system is to promote the well-being and protection of children. This is thought to be best achieved by reunifying children with their birth families, specifically birth parents. Reunification is often considered the primary goal of the child welfare system. There are two other outcomes for children in care: remaining in out-of-home care or adoption.[32] No consensus exists among academics on which of these outcomes better serves children.[33] However, the likelihood of reunification is reduced when a child experiences neglect or placement instability, which is characterized by multiple out-of-home care placements. Currently, only one Canadian study evaluates the risk factors pertaining to reunification. Esposito et al. (2014) conducted a longitudinal study with a large cohort in Quebec which determined that young children and children who experienced neglect, as per previous literature, are the least likely to reunite with their birth parents.[34]

Moreover, this understanding of neglect as a parental failure, which is consistent across provincial jurisdictions, does not provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of community and extended family members in Indigenous communities.[35] Indigenous child rearing practices, which differ between First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities, are shaped by community participation. Institutional definitions of family, which prioritize the ‘nuclear’ family, may not be applicable to Indigenous communities.[36] Indigenous families are defined by culture and identity as well as a high level of fluidity. For example, Indigenous children may live with more than one family, have multiple caregivers, and operate within complex kinship systems.[37] Conceptualizing Indigenous family structures poses a challenge for child welfare investigations, which define neglect as a caregiver failure, without consideration for alternative kinship systems.


Permanency in Care

Indigenous children are more likely to experience placement instability, and less likely to be reunified with their families or achieve permanency through formal care agreements.[38] As previously noted, the prevalence of substantiated neglect investigations poses a risk for achieving reunification. To address this, and in searching for placement permanency for Indigenous children, child welfare systems should prioritize kinship and customary care agreements, which strive to preserve cultural identity and attachment to Indigenous communities.

In Ontario, there are four types of out-of-home care agreements: foster care, kinship care, group care and customary care. Foster care and group care involve placing the child with caregivers or in a group setting chosen by the society. Kinship care refers to placement with a relative, while customary care is the process of placing an Indigenous child with someone according to traditions of the community or band. No relation to the child is necessary.[39] According to the Ontario Incident Report of Child Abuse (2018), placement in out-of-home care is uncommon, with 97% of children remaining in their homes after an investigation is conducted. The most common placement types are kinship care at 2% and foster care at 1%.[40] According to 2016 census data, in Canada 52.2% of the children in foster care are Indigenous.[41]

There has been little research on the use or efficacy of customary care agreements since their implementation in Ontario in 1985.[42] Formal Customary Care agreements dictate who is caring for the child, as guided and declared by The First Nation Band Council. The child can be placed with relatives or community members on or off-reserve if the First Nation Band Council deems the guardian sufficiently capable of transmitted First Nations customs. However, the responsibility to care for a child “lies first with the family, then the extended family, then the community, and finally the Nation.” [43] The purpose of customary care agreements is to acknowledge the value of community and culture, furthering Indigenous self-governance and cultural identity. This placement type adheres to the goals outlined in Bill C-92.

On January 26th, 2011, the Tripartite Technical Table on Child Welfare took place, to foster discussions between provincial legislators, child welfare workers, and representatives of First Nations organizations and communities. Insights from these discussions revealed that service providers are plagued by inconsistent protocols, priorities and relationships with First Nations communities. The best interests of Indigenous children are impeded by tenuous partnerships between First Nations communities and child welfare agencies, poor communication and long wait times. Despite the availability of customary care agreements for nearly four decades, there remains little consensus on identifying, implementing and overseeing these care placements.[44] This lack of consistency between child welfare agencies, as well as a lack of guidance from the provincial government, hinders the use of placement agreements that may otherwise benefit Indigenous children.

In Ontario, kinship care is the preferred type of care placement when a child is unable to remain in their home.[45] Given the value of kinship and family among Indigenous communities, kinship care provides a suitable alternative for Indigenous children. Drawing on data from an Ontario child welfare agency, Perry et al. (2012) determined that kinship care promoted placement stability, in comparison to non-kinship care agreements. This is consistent with the literature, which dictates that children in kinship care agreements experience fewer placements and fewer placement disruptions.[46] Data from an Australian study revealed that children in kinship care reported feeling more secure and cared for than those in alternate care agreements.[47] Qualitative interviews conducted by De Finney and Di Tomasso (2021) in British Columbia, determined that Indigenous youth placed significant value on relationships with family, elders and friends. These relationships existed beyond the bounds of and in spite of formal care agreements.[48]


Policy Recommendations

The persistent overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the Canadian child welfare system is the result of a lack of culturally sensitive conceptualization for the well-being of Indigenous children. In order to create and sustain child welfare practices that promote cultural continuity and substantive equality, policy frameworks must codify Indigenous values. This paper proposes the following: (1) the conceptualization of Indigenous families in child welfare policy, (2) culturally appropriate actuarial assessment tools for child welfare investigations, and (3) clarity in customary care agreement protocols.

(1) Indigenous family and kinship structures cannot be subject to a narrow understanding of the ‘nuclear’ family. To appropriately conceptualize the well-being of Indigenous children, child welfare policy must acknowledge the historical legacy of systemic genocide experienced by Indigenous Peoples. In Ontario, the current child welfare policy, The Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA), extends Indigenous self-governance and jurisdiction over child welfare. However, leeway and variation between child welfare investigations has culminated in persistent substantiated neglect investigations among Indigenous children. To combat this, child welfare policy should explicitly dictate consideration for structural inequalities and Indigenous values.

(2) Neglect investigations must be conducted with consideration for structural inequalities and a broader conceptualization of Indigenous family structures. Currently, child welfare agencies employ standardized actuarial assessment tools, which estimate the probability of risk based on previous factors and risk levels. These tools have been assigned a higher predictive validity.[49] Preliminary research conducted by Loman and Siegel (2004) in the United States determined that these tools do not hold sufficient predictive validity for Indigenous children. These tools look towards previous patterns of behaviour, such as substance abuse or periods of homelessness, to evaluate the risk or probability of neglect. This perspective unjustly punishes Indigenous families, who exhibit an increased risk of these factors. This paper recommends the construction of actuarial tools in conjunction with Indigenous communities, to provide an accurate assessment of risks.[50] The creation of population-specific tools may mitigate the persistent number of substantiated neglect investigations for Indigenous children.

(3) Indigenous children are less likely to achieve permanency, either through reunification, adoption or formal custody agreements. Customary and kinship care agreements promote continued attachments to community, family and culture. When looking for alternative care arrangements for Indigenous children these care agreements must be considered and prioritized. The lack of clarity and consensus on customary care agreements, despite their viability in promoting the well-being of children, poses a challenge.[51] It is necessary to negotiate customary care agreement protocols, which allow for flexibility, with Indigenous communities and relevant child welfare agencies. Significant research and data are needed on the subject.


Conclusion

Indigenous Peoples have an inherent right to raise their children according to the values and child rearing practices of their communities. Recently passed federal and provincial legislation strives to acknowledge the right to self-governance and Indigenous cultural identity, however, current policy frameworks fail to reflect these principles. In order to address high rates of substantiated neglect investigations, child welfare assessment tools and policy must review the conceptualization of Indigenous family structures. Indigenous children are less likely to achieve permanency and therefore, they necessitate community-based care agreements in order to maintain their cultural identity. This paper recommends codifying Indigenous values in child welfare policy. Moreover, in an effort to formally recognize the disparity within child welfare tools, this paper proposes creating culturally specific risk assessment tools, and crafting protocol agreements with Indigenous communities.



Endnotes

[1] McKenzie, Holly, Varcoe, Colleen, Browne, Annette, and Day, Linda. 2016. “Disrupting the Continuities Among Residential Schools, the Sixties Scoop, and Child Welfare: An Analysis of Colonial and Neocolonial Discourses.” The International Indigenous Policy Journal 7(2). Accessed March 20th, 2022. doi: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol7/iss2/4 [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid. [5] Ibid. [6] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. “Canada’s Residential Schools: The History, Part 2 1939 to 2000.” https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ [7] Deer, Ka’nhehsí:io. 2021. “Why it’s difficult to put a number on how many children died at residential schools.” CBC News, September 29. Accessed March 23, 2022. https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/residential-school-children-deaths-numbers [8] Dickson, Courtney, and Bridgette Watson. 2021. “Remains of 215 children found buried at former B.C. residential school, First Nation says.” CBC News, May 27. Accessed March 23, 2022. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ [9] McKenzie et al. 2016 [10] Ibid. [11] Ibid. [12] Sinclair, Raven. 2007. “Identity lost and found: Lessons from the sixties scoop.” First Peoples Child and Family Review 3(1): 65-82. https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/online-journal/vol3num1/Sinclair_pp65.pdf [13] Bill C-92. Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Children, Youth and Families, 43rd parliament, 2020, SC 2019, c. 24. https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.73/page-1.html [14] Metallic, Naiomi, Hadley Friedland, and Sarah Morales. 2019. “The Promise and Pitfalls of C-92: An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families.” Yellowhead Institute. Accessed March 23, 2022. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/the-promise-and-pitfalls-of-c-92-report.pdf [15] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. “Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action.” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/indigenous-people/ [16] Government of Canada. “Engagement on potential legislation co-developed with Indigenous communities on child and family services.” Last modified September 3, 2019. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1536260064233/1536260142039#wb-cont [17] Bill C-92, 2020 [18] Ibid. [19] Metallic, Friedland, and Morales 2019 [20] Government of Canada. “Capacity-building funding for An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families for fiscal year 2021 to 2022.” Last modified December 21, 2021. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1612285531713/1612285570871 [21] Metallic, Friedland, and Morales 2019 [22] The Child, Youth and Family Services Act, Statutes of Canada 2017, c. 21. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/17c14 [23] Fallon, Barbara, Filippelli, Joanne, Lefebvre, Rachael, Joh-Carnella, Nicolette, Trocmé, Nico, Black, Tara, and John Stoddart. 2020. “Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect-2018.” Child Welfare Research Portal. https://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/Ontario [24] Ibid. [25] Esposito, Tonino, Trocmé, Nico, Chabot, Martin, and Delphine Collin-Vézina. 2014. “Family reunification for placed children in Québec, Canada: A longitudinal study.” Children and Youth Services Review 44: 278-287. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.024 eet al., 2014 [26] Caldwell, Johanna and Vandna, Sinha. 2020. “(Re) Conceptualizing Neglect: Considering the Overrepresentation of Indigenous Children in Child Welfare Systems in Canada.” Child Indicators Research 13: 481–512. doi: 10.1007/s12187-019-09676-w [27] The Child, Youth and Family Services Act, Statutes of Canada 2017, c. 21. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/17c14 [28] Vandna, Sinha, Trocmé, Nico, Fallon, Barbara, MacLaurin, Bruce and Elizabeth Fast. 2011. “Kiskisik Awasisak: Remember the Children. Understanding the Overrepresentation of First Nations Children in the Child Welfare System.” Ontario: Assembly of First Nations. https://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/ [29] Sinha, Vandna, Trocmé, Nico, and Barbara Fallon. 2013. “Understanding the investigation-stage overrepresentation of First Nations children in the child welfare system: An analysis of the First Nations component of the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect 2008.” Child Abuse and Neglect 37(10). doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.11.010 [30] Public Health Agency of Canada. 2010. “Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect – 2008: Major Findings.” Government of Canada. https://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/CIS-2008-rprt-eng.pdf [31] Sinha et al. 2011 [32] Esposito et al. 2014 [33] McWey, Lenore and Ann Mullis. 2004. “Improving the Lives of Children in Foster Care: The Impact of Supervised Visitation.” Family Relations 53(3). doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.0005.x [34] Esposito et al. 2014 [35] Caldwell and Sinha 2020 [36] Morphy, Francis. 2006. “Lost in translation? Remote Indigenous households and definitions of the family.” Family Matters 73:23–31. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ [37] Tam, Benita, Findlay, Leanne, and Dafna Kohen. 2017. “Indigenous families: who do you call family?” Journal of Family Studies 23(3): 243-259. doi:10.1080/13229400.2015.1093536 [38] Brisebois, Kimberly and Shawna Lee. 2012. “Foster and Kinship Care: An Examination of the Legislation that Aims to Improve Permanency and Continuity of Care in Ontario.” Canadian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 3(1): 101-114. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236002058 [39] OIS-2018 [40] Ibid. [41] Government of Canada. “Reducing the number of Indigenous children in care.” Last Modified January 17, 2022. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/ [42] Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services. 2013. “Formal Customary Care: A Practice Guide to Principles, Processes and Best Practices.” https://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/documents/childrensaid/CustomaryCareGuide.pdf [43] Ibid. [44] Ibid. [45] Brisebois, Kimberly and Shawna Lee. 2012. “Foster and Kinship Care: An Examination of the Legislation that Aims to Improve Permanency and Continuity of Care in Ontario.” Canadian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 3(1): 101-114. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236002058 [46] Perry, Gretchen, Daly, Martin and Jennifer Kotler. 2012. “Placement stability in kinship and non-kin foster care: A Canadian study.” Children and Youth Services Review 34(2): 460-465. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.12.001 [47] Chapman, Mimi, Wall, Ariana, and Richard Barth. 2004. “Children's Voices: The Perceptions of Children in Foster Care.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(3), 293–304. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.74.3.293 [48] De Finney, Sandrina and Lara Di Tomasso. 2021. “Creating Places of Belonging: Expanding Notions of Permanency with Indigenous Youth in Care.” First Peoples Child and Family Review 10(1): 63-85. doi: 10.7202/1077183ar [49] Caldwell, Johanna and Vandna, Sinha. 2020. “(Re) Conceptualizing Neglect: Considering the Overrepresentation of Indigenous Children in Child Welfare Systems in Canada.” Child Indicators Research 13: 481–512. doi: 10.1007/s12187-019-09676-w [50] Loman, Anthony and Gary Siegel. 2004. “An Evaluation of the Minnesota SDM Family Risk Assessment.” Minnesota Department of Human Services. http://mnachievementgap.mnnpo.org/ [51] Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services. 2013



References


Bill C-92. Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Children, Youth and Families, 43rd parliament, 2020, SC 2019, c. 24. https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.73/page-1.html


Brisebois, Kimberly and Shawna Lee. 2012. “Foster and Kinship Care: An Examination of the Legislation that Aims to Improve Permanency and Continuity of Care in Ontario.” Canadian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 3(1): 101-114. Accessed March 23, 2022. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236002058


Caldwell, Johanna and Vandna, Sinha. 2020. “(Re) Conceptualizing Neglect: Considering the Overrepresentation of Indigenous Children in Child Welfare Systems in Canada.” Child Indicators Research 13: 481–512. Accessed March 20, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-019-09676-w


Chapman, Mimi, Wall, Ariana, and Richard Barth. 2004. “Children's Voices: The Perceptions of Children in Foster Care.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(3), 293–304. Accessed March 20, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.74.3.293


De Finney, Sandrina and Lara Di Tomasso. 2021. “Creating Places of Belonging: Expanding Notions of Permanency with Indigenous Youth in Care.” First Peoples Child and Family Review 10(1): 63-85. Accessed March 20, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.7202/1077183ar


Deer, Ka’nhehsí:io. 2021. “Why it’s difficult to put a number on how many children died at residential schools.” CBC News, September 29. Accessed March 23, 2022. https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/residential-school-children-deaths-numbers


Dickson, Courtney, and Bridgette Watson. 2021. “Remains of 215 children found buried at former B.C. residential school, First Nation says.” CBC News, May 27. Accessed March 23, 2022. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tk-emlúps-te-secwépemc-215-children-former-kamloops-indian-residential-school-1.6043778


Esposito, Tonino, Trocmé, Nico, Chabot, Martin, and Delphine Collin-Vézina. 2014. “Family reunification for placed children in Québec, Canada: A longitudinal study.” Children and Youth Services Review 44: 278-287. Accessed March 23, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.024


Government of Canada. “Capacity-building funding for An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families for fiscal year 2021 to 2022.” Last modified December 21, 2021. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1612285531713/1612285570871


Government of Canada. “Capacity-building funding for An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families for fiscal year 2021 to 2022.” Last modified December 21, 2021. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1612285531713/1612285570871


Government of Canada. “Engagement on potential legislation co-developed with Indigenous communities on child and family services”. Last modified September 3, 2019. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1536260064233/1536260142039#wb-cont


Government of Canada. “Reducing the number of Indigenous children in care.” Last Modified January 17, 2022. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/


Loman, Anthony and Gary Siegel. 2004. “An Evaluation of the Minnesota SDM Family Risk Assessment.” Minnesota Department of Human Services.Accessed March 24, 2022. http://mnachievementgap.mnnpo.org/


McKenzie, Holly, Varcoe, Colleen, Browne, Annette, and Day, Linda. 2016. “Disrupting the Continuities Among Residential Schools, the Sixties Scoop, and Child Welfare: An Analysis of Colonial and Neocolonial Discourses.” The International Indigenous Policy Journal 7(2). Accessed March 24, 2022. doi: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol7/iss2/4


McWey, Lenore and Ann Mullis. 2004. “Improving the Lives of Children in Foster Care: The Impact of Supervised Visitation.” Family Relations 53(3). Accessed March 23, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.0005.x


Metallic, Naiomi, Hadley Friedland, and Sarah Morales. 2019. “The Promise and Pitfalls of C-92: An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families.” Yellowhead Institute. Accessed March 23, 2022. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/the-promise-and-pitfalls-of-c-92-report.pdf


Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services. 2013. “Formal Customary Care: A Practice Guide to Principles, Processes and Best Practices.” https://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/documents/childrensaid/CustomaryCareGuide.pdf


Morphy, Francis. 2006. “Lost in translation? Remote Indigenous households and definitions of the family.” Family Matters 73:23–31. Accessed March 23, 2022. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/


Perry, Gretchen, Daly, Martin and Jennifer Kotler. 2012. “Placement stability in kinship and non-kin foster care: A Canadian study.” Children and Youth Services Review 34(2): 460-465. Accessed March 20, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.12.001


Public Health Agency of Canada. 2010. “Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect – 2008: Major Findings.” Government of Canada. Accessed March 23, 2022. https://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/CIS-2008-rprt-eng.pdf


Sinclair, Raven. 2007. “Identity lost and found: Lessons from the sixties scoop.” First Peoples Child and Family Review. 3(1): 65-82. Accessed March 23, 2022. https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/online-journal/vol3num1/Sinclair_pp65.pdf


The Child, Youth and Family Services Act, Statutes of Canada 2017, c. 21. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/17c14


Sinclair, Raven. 2007. “Identity lost and found: Lessons from the sixties scoop.” First Peoples Child and Family Review 3(1): 65-82. https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/online-journal/vol3num1/Sinclair_pp65.pdf


Sinha, Vandna, Trocmé, Nico, and Barbara Fallon. 2013. “Understanding the investigation-stage overrepresentation of First Nations children in the child welfare system: An analysis of the First Nations component of the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect 2008.” Child Abuse and Neglect 37(10). Accessed March 23, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.11.010


Tam, Benita, Findlay, Leanne, and Dafna Kohen. 2017. “Indigenous families: who do you call family?” Journal of Family Studies 23(3): 243-259. Accessed March 23, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2015.1093536


Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. “Canada’s Residential Schools: The History, Part 2 1939 to 2000.” Accessed March 20, 2022. https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/


Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. “Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action.” Accessed March 20, 2022. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/indigenous-people/


Vandna, Sinha, Trocmé, Nico, Fallon, Barbara, MacLaurin, Bruce and Elizabeth Fast. 2011. “Kiskisik Awasisak: Remember the Children. Understanding the Overrepresentation of First Nations Children in the Child Welfare System.” Ontario: Assembly of First Nations. Accessed March 23, 2022. https://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/

15 views0 comments